I remember Carter's douche chill educing stroll down Pennsylvania Ave like it was yesterday and I see that same overtoothy smile and arrogant cluelessness in Obamessiah.And DAMMIT I see a country full of happy idiots.

I'm going to be a happy idiotAnd struggle for the legal tenderWhere the ads take aim and lay their claimTo the heart and the soul of the spenderAnd believe in whatever may lieIn those things that money can buyThought true love could have been a contenderAre you there?Say a prayer for the pretenderWho started out so young and strongOnly to surrender

Recognizing Israel is the Palestinians' biggest bargaining chip -- once they play that they're all in.

drill sgt: Yes, Jimmy worked with terrorist leader Menachem Begin during the Camp David Accords. (While Begin led Irgun, it bombed British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people, including British officers and troops as well as Arab and Jewish civilians. The Irgun under Begin’s leadership continued to carry out operations such as the break in to Acre Prison, and the hanging of two British sergeants) Another terrorist became Prime Minister of Israel, Stern Gang leader Itzhak Shamir (The Stern Gang/Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, the highest British government representative in the region, as well as UN Mediator Count Bernadotte.)

That's nonsense. It isn't a bargaining chip at all, because they can't actually DO anything about Israel's existence. "Conceding" the existence of Israel would just symbolize that they're ready to act like adults instead of petulant children. Conceding that Israel has a right to exist wouldn't mean they had to stop attacking it -- it would just mean that they no longer entertained fantasies about driving all the Jews into the sea.

The Palestinians' big bargaining chip is that they place a lower value on their lives than the Israelis do on their own, which has the effect of making Israel more eager for an end to the killing than the Palestinians are. It is this asymmetrical relationship which they use to extory concessions.

Just finished reading Robert Novak's autobiography, The Prince of Darkness.

Of all the politicians he writes about, Novak reserves a special loathing for Pres. Carter, calling him "Little Jimmy," "a fool," "white trash," "Snopes," and basically a thin-skinned know-it-all bald-faced grinning serial liar.

He quotes Carter's first Treasury Secretary Blumenthal saying that Carter had "a very deep sense of inferiority"..."dislikes people who are very strong and successful"..."a very inexperienced and poorly informed man," one who enjoyed being "shamelessly flattered" and especially delights in having his ass kissed.

Defending folks that want to commit genocide? Hamas claims Israel is practicing genocide against the Palestinians, but that's so loose a definition that it's meaningless.

Conceding that Israel has a right to exist wouldn't mean they had to stop attacking it

Sure it would. The Palestinians believe that the Israelis are illegally occupying their land. If they give up that moral high ground, they would become mere vicious thugs. They are asking for the whole loaf in order to get half a loaf. The half-a-loaf solution works for Israel, too, because the Jewish state doesn't want to become a majority Arab state, as would happen much sooner if they integrated the West Bank and Gaza into Israel.

FLS, clueless as usual said...They are asking for the whole loaf in order to get half a loaf. The half-a-loaf solution works for Israel,

What Hamas actually said is below. What they want is 180 degrees from your statement. They first want half the loaf. all of the 1967 Jordanian lands plus Gaza, with no Israeli settlements, No agreement to Israeli's right to exist, the right of return for a couple of million arabs back to Israel, THEN, they want the rest of the loaf, and Jewish blood in the streets of liberated Palestine.

what am I missing in their position?

DAMASCUS (AFP) - Hamas is ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders but "it will not recognise Israel," the Islamist movement's exiled chief Khaled Meshaal told a news conference Monday.

"We accept a Palestinian state within the June 4 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital -- a sovereign state without settlements -- as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return, but without recognition of Israel," he said.

Sure it would. The Palestinians believe that the Israelis are illegally occupying their land. If they give up that moral high ground, they would become mere vicious thugs.

"Become"? Nobody with common sense sees them as anything else now.

Recognizing Israel -- and restricting attacks to those Israelis located in "Palestinian territory" -- would remove Israel's moral justification for the occupation. As things stand now, Israel has an iron-clad justification for occupying the West Bank and other Palestinian territories forever. There is no incentive for the Israelis to change what they are doing, because what they are doing is absolutely necessary for their own self-defense.

This isn't about Israel wanting to make the West Bank part of Israel. They haven't wanted that for a long time now.

The worst thing about President Carter's posturing in the Middle East, is that it plays to Jewish people's secret fears about Christians.

The kind which no matter how much you tell them that we, conservative Christians are on the side of Israel, and much more so around the world than liberals these days, that deep down they think Christians are all anti-semites.

I'm not exactly sure what is wrong with President Carter, and if he is indeed an anti-semite or not.

In fact, after reading almost all his books and several bios, I come to the conclusion that he's an ineffectual, but well-meaning man whose idea of liberalism means you champion the unpopular guys because that's what Jesus would do.

This isn't about Israel wanting to make the West Bank part of Israel. They haven't wanted that for a long time now.

If that was true they would have withdrawn the zionist land-grabbers. They haven't. Some saying they are leaving the religious colonists there as a bargaining chip. But the longer the powerful right wing and their supremely powerful Jewish-American lobby dig in and consider the West Back lands "redeemed for Zion for eternity" and status quo - the more intransigent they get.

FLS is right about Begin and Shamir being hardcore terrorists and the whole Israel-derived US official schtick about "never negotiating with terrorists" has always been a selective and hypocritical policy.When to negotiate with these very dangerous, repressive people in Cuba, Hamas, Hez, Iran, Venezuela, KSA, N Korea, Israel, Syria, The Congo, and Burma should be left to official American leaders and their appointed reps - not private citizens winging it. If American policy is misguided about "We never ever negotiate with terrorists!! (except those we favor, like Cuban exile terrorists and Begin and Mandela)" - it should be changed by Congress giving guidance on the matter and end-arounding ideologues and powerful ethnic lobbies now dictating who we talk to. With the President choosing to align with Congressional protocols they wish America to follow, or defying it.

Congress also needs to step in and regulate private US citizens and businesses waging their own private diplomacy.

Carter is not the only one, He is though, the worst single offender. Add in companies like Google and Checkpoint that seek to reshape diplomacy by conniving with hostile foreign entities to sell them the tools of repression - "security" equipment, weaponry, and software to use against their masses...

**********

That said, the inept Carter, apparantly determined to remind us the idiot Bush II wasn't the worst modern President, went on a moron's mission to convince Hamas, which organized around complete rejection of Israel, to accept them. All while lacking a single carrot or stick in his diplomatic quiver.. Carter has done a dozen plus of these overseas fools errands and I wouldn't mind so much because they secure his legacy and the lasting hatred of Democrats like Bill Clinton - except that each one of his private diplomacy, self-annointed human rights overseer of elections and ending "oppression" fiascos costs America's reputation and taxpayers 10s of millions for the secret service entourage tasked with protecting the Georgian Idiot from himself in dangerous places.

I favor arresting the Idiot and sticking him with charges under the Logan Act for meddling in official US diplomacy. The charges may not stick, but it would be nice seeing the fool spend the last years of his life fighting a Federal indictment.

"The kind which no matter how much you tell them that we, conservative Christians are on the side of Israel, and much more so around the world than liberals these days, that deep down they think Christians are all anti-semites."

Why don't you conservative Christians get on America's side for a change?

Vic, don't you see echos of the '76 campaign today? They're enamored of the "outsider" who will free us from the Nixon/Bush presidencies. They don't want the seasoned machine politician as their candidate, (Teddy Kennedy/Hillary) but a savior type, who might bring either the Dixiecrats (Carter) back in the fold or a new generation of voters (Obama).

"But, while Reagan was able within his first term to undo the damage Carter did to our economy and to our world prestige, we would need an Eisenhower to fix what W. broke."

Oh please. The second a Democrat is sworn in, the media will proclaim a new more humble America and that whole prestige thing will be taken care of. As far as the economy goes, what goes up, eventually comes down and what comes down goes right back up again. The recession that started under Clinton is blamed on Bush, I am sure whatever upturn we see,no matter when it begins, will be credited to the new president. OTOH, if the Republican's win again, expect more of the same. No matter what is actually happening.

Think of this in terms of global warming. Had Gore won the election (more electoral votes for those confused on how these things work) and assuming he put in place carbon credits etc even though he wouldn't be making money on it like now, this last 8-10 years of non-global warming would be trumpeted as confirmation of his policies, even though there would be no difference to what the climate is today. Same sort of thing with regards to economy and "world prestige". Whatever that is.

Why don't you conservative Christians get on America's side for a change?

Now, that's an interesting statement, and it might even be worth debating the idea of "'conservative' Christians"--because, by my lights, it's worth considering whether the "conservative" part of that label ought to be looked at more closely, and maybe even require a modifier, much as "liberal" often requires the modifier of "classical" in order to make a distinction of at least note, and often importance.

Another similarity to '76 is that Ford was never liked or trusted by the conservatives in the Republican party. He was too moderate, and crossed the aisle too many times during his long career in the House. Sound familiar?

It's often said that Ford ensured his own defeat when he pardoned Nixon. I don't accept that. First, it was the right thing to do. But beyond that, imagine if he hadn't. Watergate would have continued to drag on for years as the case wended its way through the courts, up and down the appellate ladder on issue after issue. It would have continued on well past the 1976 elections. How could that have helped Ford's prospects of winning?

Zeb, the '76 election was so close that I think you could pick out almost anything and point to it as the "cause" Ford's loss. It seems credible that he alienated at least a fraction of a percent of the electorate with the pardon.

In hindsight we can see that the pardon was a good idea because it let the country move on, but my understanding is that a lot of people at the time were ticked off by it. There was also a popular (if minority) opinion that Ford had "bought" the Presidency with the promise of a pardon.

Especially when you consider FOX is no longer an effective broker of information. What a waste. We finally get a cable news network that breaks up the liberal Monopoly of Thought, that presents our side fairly, and they morph into a frivolous entertainment channel. One big Chandra/Lacy/Natalie underwear-sniffing rubberneck. The is Greta van Susteran with BREAKING NEWS! Scott Peterson wore a red tie to court today! After the break, we'll talk with the Lacy's cousin's housekeeper!.

[sigh]

So you mean a reputable source like CBS?

He still watches CNN, despite their admission that they covered up Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers in exchange for "access". And he never wonders what else they've been censoring.

No. I read the news. My preferred sources are the WSJ, the NYT, the Guardian, the Financial Times, and for "local" news, the LA Times.

Watching people get the vapors over Fox really makes my day. Thanks.

I don't get excited or upset by Fox News. People can and will watch and/or read all sorts of things uncritically and jump to idiotic conclusions. There's nothing new about that, and Althouse certainly isn't the first and won't be the last to do so. However, anyone who relies on and references a disinformation source such as Fox "News" is a tool.

BTW, no need to thank me for your fantasy life. The fact that you include me in it earns me no credit.

Dear Friends,It is now time. It is now our turn.Our Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, is running to become President of the United States.On October 1, Renee and Lester Crown are hosting an evening reception with Senator Obama at their home, along with many of the leaders of our community.The purpose of the evening is to show Barack how appreciative we are of his steadfast, honest and proud support of Israel. In spite of a bruising schedule, Senator Obama has continued to maintain a direct dialogue with the community both here in Chicago and nationally. It is also quite unusual to have the opportunity to deliver a specific policy message of appreciation during the rigors of a presidential campaign. If you have already contributed fully to the campaign, thank you, your support is greatly appreciated. Please consider additional family members and others who can attend/contribute to this special event.

Barack Obama has established a strong record as a true friend of Israel, a stalwart defender of Israel’s security, and an effective advocate of strengthening the steadfast U.S.-Israel relationship, publicly stating that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged.More importantly, he has continued to make policy decisions and statements directly impacting the safety and security of both Israel and the U.S. To identify just a few highlights during 2007: In his first policy pronouncement after announcing his decision to enter the presidential race, Senator Obama delivered a major address to the Chicago community clearly defining his support for a safe and secure Israel. Believing that Americans must do more to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Senator Obama played a leadership role as primary sponsor of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act in May, 2007.o This legislation makes it easier for state and local governments to divest their pension funds of companies that invest in Iran's energy sector, thus depriving Iran of the revenue to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism.o While taking no option off the table, including military action, divestment is a useful tool to bring economic pressure to bear on Iran.o At present, Florida and Illinois have passed divestment legislation and California’s awaits the governor’s signature. Senator Obama was the first presidential candidate to support the Memorandum Of Understanding recently signed by both the United States and Israel, stating “I support the recent agreement to increase military assistance, as part of the United States' unique defense relationship with Israel, which serves the security interests of both our countries…it (is) more important than ever that the United States live up to its commitment to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge in a dangerous region”. In this agreement:o Both countries agree that their political, security and economic interests are fundamentally enhanced by increased regional economic growth and cooperation in the Middle East.o Reflecting the U.S’s unshakable commitment to Israel’s security, the United States supports increased levels of foreign aid assistance to Israel in future years to help Israel meet its security requirements.o These increases, totaling $6 billion, should occur over a ten-year period beginning in FY 2009, with total security assistance over the course of this understanding equal to $30 billion.So… it is now time. It is now our turn.Please join us in welcoming Senator Barack Obama and in appreciation of his determined focus on the safety and security of the United States and its most important ally, Israel.

Or did you mean you think Carter supports Israel as much as Obama does, and you were merely being ironic?

Same level of experience.

Of the modern Presidents, Carter's pre-White House experience most nearly matches Reagan's: two terms in the state Senate plus one term as Governor vs. two terms as Governor.